Defense?

[El Gordo]

"exclude"

I'm almost certain that they exclude the batter-runner.

Another area of concern is if balls that drop in a particular "zone" have specific park effects: for example, if a ball in deep RF that falls in for a hit has a higher expected run value overall than it does in a particular stadium. They only park-adjust based the number of plays made/not made, not the expected run values for the various situations. I would imagine that a ball down the line in RF has a higher run value in OPACY due to the nook.

edit: Also, while they exclude wall balls, that could negatively affect the park's handling because those balls might produce a generally positive fielder run expectancy at other parks.

What makes you almost certain. Do you have a source? And BTW, disclude is considered an acceptable usage. It's from the Latin discludere which means to shut apart.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Having watched a lot of baseball in my 33 years and a ton of Orioles baseball at that, I have a really, really hard time buying into the notion that any metric could show that Jay Gibbons has ever had 1 season better in RF than even Nick Markakis' worst season in RF.

I've adressed this a couple times in the thread. The statistics don't imply that Gibbons was better skilled than Nick. UZR is measured relative to the pool of talent for that particular year. Applying some reasonable thought and analysis, Gibbons had a better UZR because he was measured against a less talented pool of right fielders.

[Hallas]

What makes you almost certain. Do you have a source? And BTW, disclude is considered an acceptable usage. It's from the Latin discludere which means to shut apart.

Because the Fangraphs UZR primer basically says that they use the average result of all plays in a given time period. That implies that the batter-runner is completely disregarded. Otherwise, the result of the play would necessarily have to be used.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-fangraphs-uzr-primer/

By the way, when figuring the value of a play, or the difference between a hit and an out for a certain type of batted ball in a certain location, we always use the average hit value for that kind of ball over our 6-year time span and across all parks. We don’t use the actual hit value on that play (e.g. a double) if the batted ball lands for a hit, and we don’t use the average hit value for that park.

Also "disclude" is incorrect usage in this situation, as despite its latin roots, it means to uncover. It is an antonym of "occlude."

[CA-ORIOLE]

Or outs.

That's true. Just considering doubles/deep balls "cost" more and you'd need more outs to compensate. Hence "could" imply a reward, but maybe it's the other way. I don't know. How the heck do you even figure that? I guess the smart guys figured it wasn't worth it and went with neutral.

[El Gordo]

I've adressed this a couple times in the thread. The statistics don't imply that Gibbons was better than Nick. UZR is measured relative to the pool of talent for that particular year. Applying some reasonable thought and analysis, Gibbons had a better UZR because he was measured against a less talented pool of right fielders.

In all but one of his 6 seasons where he played some RF for the O's Gibbons had a plus UZR at home. In all but one of his 6 seasons in RF for the O's Markakis had a negative UZR at home. And you say this is because the talent pool for RF 2002-2007 was poor in comparison to the talent pool for RF 2006-2011? Remember the likes Ichiro, Vlad, Trot Nixon, Larry Walker. Hidalgo, Sheffield,et.al. were pretty spry way back then.

[CA-ORIOLE]

In all but one of his 6 seasons where he played some RF for the O's Gibbons had a plus UZR at home. In all but one of his 6 seasons in RF for the O's Markakis had a negative UZR at home. And you say this is because the talent pool for RF 2002-2007 was poor in comparison to the talent pool for RF 2006-2011? Remember the likes Ichiro, Vlad, Trot Nixon, Larry Walker. Hidalgo, Sheffield,et.al. were pretty spry way back then.

Shefffield for one was horrible in RF. I you're going to engage me at least try and be honest and a lot less lazy. You're wrong.

[Frobby]

In all but one of his 6 seasons where he played some RF for the O's Gibbons had a plus UZR at home. In all but one of his 6 seasons in RF for the O's Markakis had a negative UZR at home. And you say this is because the talent pool for RF 2002-2007 was poor in comparison to the talent pool for RF 2006-2011? Remember the likes Ichiro, Vlad, Trot Nixon, Larry Walker. Hidalgo, Sheffield,et.al. were pretty spry way back then.

It's all a big Rohrschach test if you ask me. You can explain that data any way you want. Here is what I know: Jay Gibbons got hurt in 2006, Nick was moved to RF and it was apparent to anyone watching that Gibbons would never play another game in RF for the Orioles because Nick was vastly superior there. And while Nick is probably not quite as good a defender now as he was when he was younger, he is miles better than Jay Gibbons ever was. I believe that as deeply as I believe that Frank Robinson was a better hitter than Nick Markakis.

[El Gordo]

Because the Fangraphs UZR primer basically says that they use the average result of all plays in a given time period. That implies that the batter-runner is completely disregarded. Otherwise, the result of the play would necessarily have to be used.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-fangraphs-uzr-primer/

Also "disclude" is incorrect usage in this situation, as despite its latin roots, it means to uncover. It is an antonym of "occlude."

I wasn't referring to the UZR arm rating system, I was referring to the FB's. This is their explaination:

How do you measure an Outfield Arm Runs Saved?

We account for the strength and accuracy of an outfielder’s arm by comparing the rates at which runners advance in potential extra-base situations. In extra base situations, the runner could either 1) advance safely, 2) get thrown out attempting to advance, or 3) hold at the previous base and not challenge the outfielder. Based on average 24-states run expectancies of each outcome, we award the outfielder the appropriate credit/penalty for his contributions above/below the average fielder at his position.

We also account for miscellaneous “kills”, where the outfielder directly guns down an opposing baserunner in a situation we haven’t already covered. Each of these plays is a 0.75-run credit to the outfielder. Adam Jones led baseball in 2009 with 12 Outfield Arm Runs Saved

http://fieldingbible.com/Fielding-Bible-FAQ.asp

[TGO]

This Gibbons stuff is much ado about nothing IMO. He only posted positive numbers in 2004 and 2005, two years where he played ~550 innings each in RF. That's about 60 games worth of innings per season. Too small a sample. Combined they don't equal his innings in 2003, when he posted a -8.something.

[El Gordo]

Yeah, that would be the next logical extension, but I see a danger in making too many adjustments and ruining the integrity of the data. Sounds to me (as I suspected) that UZR has a more comprehensive data/analytical approach and FB a simpler one on this wall issue. I don't think FB adjusts at all for IF defense/groundballs and believe UZR does.

This is what the FB says about park adjustments:

How do you handle the Green Monster in Boston and other strange park oddities?

In 2007, we introduced the “Manny Adjustment.” In this adjustment we eliminate any ball that hits an outfield wall that is out of reach of the outfielder (i.e. too high on the wall). Basically, we’re treating a ball hitting a wall out of reach in the same way we treat a home run. They can’t be caught so they are left out of the universe of plays to consider.

As for non-wall park peculiarities, we only compare balls that are in play in one park to other parks where the ball was also in play. In other words, a hard fly ball hit 405 feet to Vector 183 in center field is only compared to other hard fly balls that stayed in play when hit 405 feet to Vector 183. The system doesn’t know that this particular ball was a home run in other ballparks; it only knows that when that particular ball was in play, it was caught X% of the time. This is a de facto park effect- because the plus/minus zones are so precise, it handles strange wall and park configurations pretty well.

Might not be a bad idea to read the whole FAQ section: http://fieldingbible.com/Fielding-Bible-FAQ.asp

[Lucky Jim]

This Gibbons stuff is much ado about nothing IMO. He only posted positive numbers in 2004 and 2005, two years where he played ~550 innings each in RF. That's about 60 games worth of innings per season. Too small a sample. Combined they don't equal his innings in 2003, when he posted a -8.something.

I'm reminded of this:

How about his career UZR/150 of -5.9 there?

That work for you?

Or I guess 77 games is too small of a sample size and defensive metrics don't mean anything to you...

[El Gordo]

Shefffield for one was horrible in RF. I you're going to engage me at least try and be honest and a lot less lazy. You're wrong.

In 2002 and 2003 Sheffied had a plus UZR. But nice dodge. Are you really going to say that the others I listed were also poor fielders, or that the level of RF defense in 2002-2006 was not nearly as high as it was from 2006-2011. I'd really like to see how you can demonstrate that with hard data.:rolleyestf:

[El Gordo]

This Gibbons stuff is much ado about nothing IMO. He only posted positive numbers in 2004 and 2005, two years where he played ~550 innings each in RF. That's about 60 games worth of innings per season. Too small a sample. Combined they don't equal his innings in 2003, when he posted a -8.something.

My point isn't that he was a good RF only that he only had one year where he had home splits worse than his away splits. If Gibbons could maintain a plus UZR in OPACY RF when he played there, how is it that Marakakis can't? They haven't changed the park that much have they?

[El Gordo]

I'm reminded of this:

So Gibbons managed to play a plus UZR RF in OPACY because a) all the other RF at that time were so bad they made Jay look good even in the snake pit that is OPACY's RF, and b) also Gibbons didn't play enough games in RF for his luck factor to catch up to him. On the other hand the quality of RF play today is so superior that poor Nick looks bad in OPACY's RF even though he really is good. Yeah that's the ticket.

[crawjo]

I've never thought Nick looked particularly good in right field in OPACY. Yes he can field a ball bare-handed off the wall and fire into second, but I hate his range. I think he's below average coming in on the ball and not particularly good going over his shoulder either.